What Ba should have done with the 5 flying Concordes

Originally posted by andrewman
Why the hell they are sending one their is beond me

If you’ve ever been to Grantley Adams you’d know that you need all the shade you can get, waiting to pass through immigration whilst standing under Concorde sounds a fine idea to me 😀

Preferably at 200 ft at 500knots in full reheat….:D 😀

Not an ongoing proposition, but it would have been nice to see a formation flypast at Heathrow at the end. Imagine it, a V of five concordes……aaahhh….boooohoo….

Originally posted by Flood
Were/are all of them flyers to the end? I thought that 2(?) hadn’t been converted and are probably, therefore, classed as unairworthy (but I would much prefer that someone enlighten us as to this situation).
As to running a Concorde along a runway to amuse people… How does it compare fuel wise with the Vulcan? How often do the tires need to be replaced (seem to recall it was something ridiculously often like every 6 cycles…) – could an amateur group take on that kind of expense? Would the engineering be too complex for an amateur group to look after – not talking qualified engineers here since I keep getting told that an engine is just an engine(!) – but since there were not many built there is not exactly going to be a surplus of serviceable spares – or Christmas trees to pick them from – and Airbus isn’t going to go out of their way to help either.
Sorry; another fantasy shattered?

Flood.

Of the 7 Concordes BA had, 5 of them were flyers to the end. Only G-BOAA and G-BOAB were not modified post Paris crash and G-BOAA is the one that is going to East Fortune. This will be in a dismantled state by road/sea, unless the cost of this is going to be more than getting airworthy, in which case BA said this will be done and it’ll be flown up. If it’s the later, then this will certainley be the last ever flight by a Concorde. Pressumably BA won’t have to do all the mods as it will be a non-commercial flight, so lets hope they decide to fly her up there next year. The other grounded example, G-BOAB, is to remain at Heathrow, which adds fuel to the rumour of it being hung from the roof inside the new Terminal 5…..:cool:

And as BA is retaining ownership of all the Concordes, no volunteer group outside BA/Airbus/BAe etc would be permitted to even maintain one in a taxi state….Brunty tried to get one and were unsuccessful.

Concorde is very thirsty………I’ve heard over 2000kgs of fuel to get to from standstill to rotate, pressumably though, this is when fully laden……..:eek:

Mike Bannister certainley gave it plenty yesterday on leaving Heathrow to deliver the one to Manchaster…..pity it was only a subsonic transit to Manchester, probably why there was still 20 odd seats empty…..as apposed to the Barbados delivery flight which is full already…..:)

Why would anybody want to preserve an AWAC.
Nasty flying coffee table, should all be scrapped now.

Me, bitter? Never.

Grantley-effing-Adams Airport

Why the hell they are sending one their is beond me as is the one going on a barge in the Hudson river..

Maybe BA want rid of them so are sending them as far away as possible.

I agree with AT6 that it would’ve been nice if they could’ve been kept flying,or atleast one.Ah well. 🙁
What I’m wondering,and excuse me for sounding like a stuck record on this,is why Brooklands didn’t get one.It seems utterly stupid to take one to Grantley-effing-Adams Airport when there is an appropriate museum just a few miles away!They built the biggest sections of Concorde at Weybridge for goodness sake! Putting a Concorde on display there would in a way be taking one back to it’s birthplace,and it would have a reasonably secure future.You can’t get much more of an appropriate home than that surely?
Did Brooklands apply for one and get turned down or did they decide they didn’t want one?For the life of me I can’t think why they ended up not getting one…

Were/are all of them flyers to the end? I thought that 2(?) hadn’t been converted and are probably, therefore, classed as unairworthy (but I would much prefer that someone enlighten us as to this situation).
As to running a Concorde along a runway to amuse people… How does it compare fuel wise with the Vulcan? How often do the tires need to be replaced (seem to recall it was something ridiculously often like every 6 cycles…) – could an amateur group take on that kind of expense? Would the engineering be too complex for an amateur group to look after – not talking qualified engineers here since I keep getting told that an engine is just an engine(!) – but since there were not many built there is not exactly going to be a surplus of serviceable spares – or Christmas trees to pick them from – and Airbus isn’t going to go out of their way to help either.
Sorry; another fantasy shattered?

Flood.

No Lancman it would be very nice to see them taxing.

Ok its not the same as flying no where near in fact but if its taxing or sitting gathering dust I know what I prefer.

More perhaps than any other aircraft, I think that seeing a Concorde just trundling along a runway and not lifting off at the end of it would be particularly sad. 🙁

we could…. or we could just mock the yanks and pretend we want to sell them one… coz we know the reason they would only let it land at NY and no where is else is coz we wouldn’t give them any!! hehehe

I have a use for 3 of them, involves a large bit of elastic and a giant dart board 😀
What a great sport, Concorde darts, we could make it into an anglo french competition :p

what BA should have done was kept them flying.